Lets see: 140,000 known Windows exploits, most of them surfacing in the last 12 years makes that at least one exploit released every 45 minutes - or there abouts. Hell, Vista has an installed base smaller than BeOS right now and it has more exploits already.
Do you suppose the rejection of the iPhone deal had anything to do with the fact Verizon was planning services which compete against everything on it? Not suggesting that Verizon will dry up and blow away anytime soon, but this is the highest profile threat Verizon will face in all those areas [voice in head: but it's only Cingular].
Everyone connects to an ISP somewhere. I'd suggest legislating the ISPs to disconnect home users if their account/connection port makes X attempts at SMTP traffic per minute. That could be completely automated. You could go deeper and read the SMTP envelope for spoofed headers. When the [-L]user call for tech support... tell them to clean up their machine.
That's just wrong. The iPod/iTunes thing is a whole system. Should CDs be illegal because they don't play in my cassette deck? If the user doesn't like the system, there are other stores and music players out there. Choose another system but don't legislate which system I'm allowed to use.
If it's because people want to use their iTunes purchased music on another player, then where in the hell were these lawmakers when I had to repurchase my record and tape collection on CD? They certainly didn't make that illegal.
It's time to look at some other vendor for voting machines and whatever else they make. Our future is too important to leave to stumbling bumblers like that. Anything can be defeated but shouldn't be as easy as this.
I can totally see the lawsuits over domain names. If we can get these mobius loop domains classified as spam, then something could be done. The idea behind them is to deceive visitors and deny the use of large swaths of domain names to the planet. I say put them on their own TLD which could be easily filtered. Make it.ADV and let them beat themselves to death. They can even keep the domain name, it just won't be.COM. If the common user finds those sites useful, by all means use them. If the common user chooses to ignore those sites, tick the checkbox on Google or Yahoo to ignore.ADV results, or set your browser to block.ADV links. Done. It's not dissimilar to the move toward.XXX domains.
That's where the judgement call comes into play. I've got a site where I host some personal photos and another which just says "welcome to.net" for now. Those wouldn't be a target for deletion because they don't show a pattern of abuse. They don't trash search engines, squat on thousands of useful domain names or mislead people into black holes. However, take a look at some of the sites which are clearly a waste of bandwidth, it wouldn't take long to figure out who is hosting thousands of those sites at once and de-commission the whole batch. I don't think there's any guarantee that someone would get a domain name just because they want it. All assigned names belong to ICANN and they can simply deny renewal to the abusers if they chose to do so.
The bad news is this would simply start another cat and mouse game, electronic warfare between abusers and the people trying to stop them. It would also open the doors to using this method for censorship at the hands of influential, interested parties.
There has to be a way to neutralize these sites as the Internet is getting more useless every day. Legitimate people who try to register a site find their name is taken by someone just sitting on it and demanding $50,000 for the name. Here's a dangerous idea: cancel the domain registrations. Make a few simple rules, like any entity found to have more than 10 mobius loop sites like this will have all their registrations released and name servers de-listed (which would kill the ISP). We could get the Internet back in one afternoon. The dangerous part is that someone will need to decide what qualifies and what doesn't.
why should they be singled out for trying to do this?
Because it's laughable and easily spotted. Like a drunk: "really occifer.. I only had tee martoonis and got all sober to sunday up in". Yeah, I'd believe that. It was clear they tried to build astroturf consensus for the Zune as well. Many blogs had entries about the Zune with exactly the same broad notions: this is wonderful... but nothing concrete about it. Sorry, I don't appreciate being spoken to like a fool.
That's a very good perspective on how many people's minds work. The FBI warning on DVDs is quite analogous to cartoons issuing platitudes about unpaid software - they'll be ignored. Granted, there are people dumb enough to think this is all free. Warnings won't work unless there's some teeth behind them. Guilt works for some people, others enjoy following authoritarian rules and enforcing them on others but most are completely convinced that no consequence will come out of it. So, I'd say the majority of the people who obtain and use unpaid works (which should be paid) really do know the difference but shrug it off as unenforceable.
Ask any kid if they can copy music and they'll tell you "uhh... yeah" like you're stupid. Ask why they don't buy music and they'll tell you it's free. Frankly, most of them wouldn't buy what they download for free anyway, so what revenue is actually lost? That's a common retort [excuse] for scamming music and software. If that's true, no revenue is actually lost but let a few of them get raided by the RIAA and the word starts getting out. They all know it's not right to capture free music and software and it won't phase them unless the consequences start hitting too close to home.
My [current] father in law knows right from wrong and has bought software before. A recent conversation we had over how QuickBooks can help his small business prompted him to ask if he can "borrow" my copy. I told him he needed to buy it and he looked at me like I was from the moon. It was an uncomfortable moment and he absolutely "got it" but it was clear he didn't see the harm in giving him a copy for free. The deterring event was that he might get caught. Visions of his computer reporting him to the serial number police who drag him out of bed in the middle of the night worked. Suddenly he had no problem paying for his own copy. He knew that up front but it didn't matter unless the specter of consequence became real.
It will be just as effective as the FBI warnings on all DVDs. That's not a deterrent. Shutting off your OS remotely is a deterrent for the user - a deterrent from using the OS to start with, that is. I wonder which Einstein® thought this one up?
Yes. I spent about 45 seconds scouring the Internet looking for recent data on the sales of each type of iPod - nothing! So even if the non-30GB units don't sell better, that just creates a worst case number against the Zune.
But iPod stats don't matter much for European Zune sales. Microsoft will change a few things to make European Zune customers as happy as possible. Both of them.
Hey... there is a 30gig iPod. So out of 9 different iPod models, the Zune had a 10.2% share of one of those which effectively means 1.13% share against iPods. Mix in every other player in contention and their market share is probably more like 0.04%.
Slashdot Mirror
Lets see: 140,000 known Windows exploits, most of them surfacing in the last 12 years makes that at least one exploit released every 45 minutes - or there abouts. Hell, Vista has an installed base smaller than BeOS right now and it has more exploits already.
Do you suppose the rejection of the iPhone deal had anything to do with the fact Verizon was planning services which compete against everything on it? Not suggesting that Verizon will dry up and blow away anytime soon, but this is the highest profile threat Verizon will face in all those areas [voice in head: but it's only Cingular].
In 5 years we will be still laughing at ...Microsoft for only being a bit player in the progression but still trying to patent everything.
Television is just a passing fad...
Shouldn't Microsoft patent it while it's still useful?
And that system would exist just as well without DRM!
Oh, hell yeah. I hate DRM as much as musicians like to get paid. Solve that and you've got a deal.
Everyone connects to an ISP somewhere. I'd suggest legislating the ISPs to disconnect home users if their account/connection port makes X attempts at SMTP traffic per minute. That could be completely automated. You could go deeper and read the SMTP envelope for spoofed headers. When the [-L]user call for tech support... tell them to clean up their machine.
That's just wrong. The iPod/iTunes thing is a whole system. Should CDs be illegal because they don't play in my cassette deck? If the user doesn't like the system, there are other stores and music players out there. Choose another system but don't legislate which system I'm allowed to use.
If it's because people want to use their iTunes purchased music on another player, then where in the hell were these lawmakers when I had to repurchase my record and tape collection on CD? They certainly didn't make that illegal.
It's time to look at some other vendor for voting machines and whatever else they make. Our future is too important to leave to stumbling bumblers like that. Anything can be defeated but shouldn't be as easy as this.
I can totally see the lawsuits over domain names. If we can get these mobius loop domains classified as spam, then something could be done. The idea behind them is to deceive visitors and deny the use of large swaths of domain names to the planet. I say put them on their own TLD which could be easily filtered. Make it .ADV and let them beat themselves to death. They can even keep the domain name, it just won't be .COM. If the common user finds those sites useful, by all means use them. If the common user chooses to ignore those sites, tick the checkbox on Google or Yahoo to ignore .ADV results, or set your browser to block .ADV links. Done. It's not dissimilar to the move toward .XXX domains.
That's where the judgement call comes into play. I've got a site where I host some personal photos and another which just says "welcome to .net" for now. Those wouldn't be a target for deletion because they don't show a pattern of abuse. They don't trash search engines, squat on thousands of useful domain names or mislead people into black holes. However, take a look at some of the sites which are clearly a waste of bandwidth, it wouldn't take long to figure out who is hosting thousands of those sites at once and de-commission the whole batch. I don't think there's any guarantee that someone would get a domain name just because they want it. All assigned names belong to ICANN and they can simply deny renewal to the abusers if they chose to do so.
The bad news is this would simply start another cat and mouse game, electronic warfare between abusers and the people trying to stop them. It would also open the doors to using this method for censorship at the hands of influential, interested parties.
There has to be a way to neutralize these sites as the Internet is getting more useless every day. Legitimate people who try to register a site find their name is taken by someone just sitting on it and demanding $50,000 for the name. Here's a dangerous idea: cancel the domain registrations. Make a few simple rules, like any entity found to have more than 10 mobius loop sites like this will have all their registrations released and name servers de-listed (which would kill the ISP). We could get the Internet back in one afternoon. The dangerous part is that someone will need to decide what qualifies and what doesn't.
why should they be singled out for trying to do this?
Because it's laughable and easily spotted. Like a drunk: "really occifer.. I only had tee martoonis and got all sober to sunday up in". Yeah, I'd believe that. It was clear they tried to build astroturf consensus for the Zune as well. Many blogs had entries about the Zune with exactly the same broad notions: this is wonderful... but nothing concrete about it. Sorry, I don't appreciate being spoken to like a fool.
That's a very good perspective on how many people's minds work. The FBI warning on DVDs is quite analogous to cartoons issuing platitudes about unpaid software - they'll be ignored. Granted, there are people dumb enough to think this is all free. Warnings won't work unless there's some teeth behind them. Guilt works for some people, others enjoy following authoritarian rules and enforcing them on others but most are completely convinced that no consequence will come out of it. So, I'd say the majority of the people who obtain and use unpaid works (which should be paid) really do know the difference but shrug it off as unenforceable.
Ask any kid if they can copy music and they'll tell you "uhh... yeah" like you're stupid. Ask why they don't buy music and they'll tell you it's free. Frankly, most of them wouldn't buy what they download for free anyway, so what revenue is actually lost? That's a common retort [excuse] for scamming music and software. If that's true, no revenue is actually lost but let a few of them get raided by the RIAA and the word starts getting out. They all know it's not right to capture free music and software and it won't phase them unless the consequences start hitting too close to home.
My [current] father in law knows right from wrong and has bought software before. A recent conversation we had over how QuickBooks can help his small business prompted him to ask if he can "borrow" my copy. I told him he needed to buy it and he looked at me like I was from the moon. It was an uncomfortable moment and he absolutely "got it" but it was clear he didn't see the harm in giving him a copy for free. The deterring event was that he might get caught. Visions of his computer reporting him to the serial number police who drag him out of bed in the middle of the night worked. Suddenly he had no problem paying for his own copy. He knew that up front but it didn't matter unless the specter of consequence became real.
It will be just as effective as the FBI warnings on all DVDs. That's not a deterrent. Shutting off your OS remotely is a deterrent for the user - a deterrent from using the OS to start with, that is. I wonder which Einstein® thought this one up?
Yes. I spent about 45 seconds scouring the Internet looking for recent data on the sales of each type of iPod - nothing! So even if the non-30GB units don't sell better, that just creates a worst case number against the Zune.
But iPod stats don't matter much for European Zune sales. Microsoft will change a few things to make European Zune customers as happy as possible. Both of them.
think I speak for most europeans when I say brown does not make me think nazi. It makes me think shit :)
OT: You made me pass a mouthful of Margarita through my nose... very funny.
Perhaps he should write about how it was a mistake for Microsoft to announce the Zune so early. They should have waited another decade.
Will Microsoft be ordered to un-bundle Windows Media Player from the Zune as well? Just a thought...
Hey... there is a 30gig iPod. So out of 9 different iPod models, the Zune had a 10.2% share of one of those which effectively means 1.13% share against iPods. Mix in every other player in contention and their market share is probably more like 0.04%.
No cross contamination, please.
Probably convenient that there is no 30 gigabyte iPod.
Nyuk Nyuk... the opposing team left the field at halftime and they still lost the game. oh puuullleeeezzzzzz..
As much as the Europeans warmly embrace Windows Media Player (or Windows Anything), so too shall their success be.
I don't want to run Windows at all, I just want to run Windows Apps. Here's to putting faith into things like Crossover.
Ohhh... this stuff would make fabulous condoms. They could recover the entire R&D budget in three weekends.
Oh, yeah... go ahead and mod me down, but... SOLD TO THE HIGHEST BIDDER!... or most influence.